Some employers offer their employees subsidized membership of gyms and sports clubs,
believing that this will make their staff healthier and thus more effective at work. Other employers
see no benefit in doing so.
Consider the arguments from both aspects of this possible debate, and reach a conclusion.
Employers are always seeking ways to enhance their employees’ productivity, and
subsidizing healthy pursuits may be one way of achieving this. There are arguments on both sides,
however, which we will discuss here.
On the one hand, it might be said that if workers are fitter and less stressed, their working time
will be more efficient, leading to higher levels of output and service. Furthermore, the work/life
balance of the staff will hopefully be improved, because their leisure time will be more fulfilling.
This may even be more motivating than pay increments, perks, or financial rewards such as
bonuses or incentives which may be hard to attain. Finally, feeling healthier may lead to better job
satisfaction which is in itself a motivating factor.
Conversely, the problem with such leisure-based subsidies is that their efficacy is virtually
impossible to quantify. For example, with target-related payments, employers can at least see
whether the objectives are reached or not. It might also be said that, if this budget was spent on (for
instance) on the job training or day release programmes, the employees would achieve better
career progression and have better job prospects. These matters are all easier to measure,
especially in performance reviews and appraisals, and may even help to reduce the risk of
redundancy if the company restructures, downsizes or outsources its workforce.
Overall, it seems that, while health-related subsidies are superficially attractive, the lack of
measurability is a substantial drawback. Spending funds on ongoing training would appear to be a
better use of company or Human Resources budgets.
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'conversely', 'finally', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'while', 'at least', 'for example', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.230508474576 0.247107183377 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.169491525424 0.155533422707 109% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0813559322034 0.0946595960268 86% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0576271186441 0.0501214627716 115% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0338983050847 0.0437548338989 77% => OK
Prepositions: 0.101694915254 0.122226691241 83% => OK
Participles: 0.0406779661017 0.0403226058552 101% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.11750573644 2.80594681477 111% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0271186440678 0.0326793684256 83% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00163938923432 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.064406779661 0.0861772015684 75% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0474576271186 0.021408717616 222% => Less modal verbs wanted (like 'must , shall , will , should , would , can , could , may , and might').
WH_determiners: 0.0101694915254 0.011925033212 85% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1666.0 1933.35771543 86% => OK
No of words: 258.0 316.048096192 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.45736434109 6.12580529183 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.20517956788 95% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.406976744186 0.374742101984 109% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.341085271318 0.28420135186 120% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.244186046512 0.203846283523 120% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.193798449612 0.137316102897 141% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11750573644 2.80594681477 111% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 176.037074148 93% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.635658914729 0.56093040696 113% => OK
Word variations: 70.7954196947 60.7387585426 117% => OK
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0891783567 75% => OK
Sentence length: 21.5 20.7743622355 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.1055374027 49.517814964 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.833333333 127.492653851 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 20.7743622355 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.0 0.814263465372 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 19.0 4.38877755511 433% => There are something wrong with the essay format.
Language errors: 0.0 3.99599198397 0% => OK
Readability: 55.6085271318 49.1944974215 113% => OK
Elegance: 1.42857142857 1.69124875643 84% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.235634389865 0.332605444948 71% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0996103867904 0.102741220458 97% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0634498007505 0.0668466124924 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.781716997366 0.534860350844 146% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.228547747893 0.148594505496 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0951364558105 0.134430193775 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0563493269431 0.0742795772207 76% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.0681327471786 0.324371583561 21% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0624796691951 0.0638462369009 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0770511951234 0.228012699653 34% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0559356652262 0.058150111329 96% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.68436873747 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.41683366733 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 6.0 5.90881763527 102% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 2.5751503006 39% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 1.9629258517 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 7.0 10.4468937876 67% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.